Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (HKCFI) stayed an application to set aside the enforcement of an arbitration award and remitted the matter to the arbitrator under Article 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law (as enacted by section 81 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 609 (‘AO’)), to give the arbitrator an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings and reconsider questions of illegality under Hong Kong law. Under the AO, no appeal of decisions of fact or law made by an arbitrator is permitted (unless Schedule 2 applies). G sought to have the enforcement of the award set aside as the law relating to public policy in Hong Kong changed a few days before the Award was handed down. Although it was contended by N that this set aside application was a thinly veiled appeal, the judge held that the court was entitled to review the Award, not because of any error in fact or law, but the supervisory court had a duty to consider whether the enforcement of the Award was contrary to public policy. In doing so the court is bound to consider public policy as recognized at the date of review. The court may be compelled to set aside an award if the court considers that it would be manifestly unjust and against the public policy of Hong Kong to enforce the Award, whether by reason of disproportionality or the weighing up of different public policies or interests involved. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration Greater China, Stephenson Harwood.

This Practice Note has been updated in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025 and contains reference to amended provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996. For further information on commencement and transitional provisions see Practice Note: Arbitration Act 2025 commencement and transitional provisions.  This Practice Note provides an introduction to arbitration and its key features, with a particular focus on arbitration under the law of England and Wales, including the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025 and came into force on 1 August 2025. Arbitration is a form of final and binding dispute resolution presided over by an appointed arbitral tribunal (one or three arbitrators, typically) acting in a quasi-judicial manner. Arbitration is, generally speaking, founded on party agreement (the arbitration agreement), and regulated and enforced by national law and national courts. In choosing arbitration, parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of litigating in court. The result of an arbitration is, usually,

Arbitration analysis: In its 17 October 2025 judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court rejected the Russian Federation’s final attempt to annul the Yukos arbitral awards worth over US$50bn. The court upheld the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s finding that Russia’s belated allegation of fraud (bedrog) by the Yukos shareholders was inadmissible for violating the ‘good procedural order’ rule (Article 130(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). Because that procedural assessment is immune from appeal under Article 130(2), the Supreme Court could not review it. The decision confirms that, under Dutch law, annulment proceedings cannot be used to reopen facts that were (or could have been) raised earlier. It consolidates the Netherlands’ reputation as a predictable and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction where procedural discipline prevails over litigation tactics. Written by Flip Petillion, FCIArb, partner at PETILLION (Brussels); Deputy Judge at the Brussels Court of Appeal; Independent International Arbitrator (in arbitrations administered by, eg, ICC, ICDR, SIAC, WIPO, CEPANI).

Arbitration analysis: A dispute arose as to the appointment of arbitrators and the constitution of the tribunal. The claimant's position is that the respondent failed to appoint its arbitrator within time and the first appointed arbitrator should be confirmed as sole arbitrator. The respondent claims that its arbitrator was appointed within time, if not it seeks an extension of time for doing so. The respondent has also sought to challenge the appointment of the first arbitrator on the grounds of apparent bias. The English court's decision concerns applications for disclosure of (1) communications between the respondent and their putative arbitrators; and (2) information regarding the identity of the claimant. The court applied the following principles: (1) The applicant must demonstrate that the arbitration claim has a real prospect of success; (2) The documents sought must be strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the arbitration claim; (3) In exercising its discretion, regard must be given to the overriding objective with particular regard to the context of arbitration. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration, Greater China at Stephenson Harwood.

In the context of arbitration proceedings, this Practice Note introduces: • the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) regime which is applicable in the EEA and was formerly applicable under UK law until the end of the Brexit implementation period (11 pm UK time on 31 December 2020), and • the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) regime (applicable under UK law from the end of the Brexit implementation period) Where there is no need to distinguish the two regimes, this Practice Note refers to both as the ‘GDPR’ for convenience. When considering the general processing of personal data, both the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) should be read together as both sets of provisions directly apply. Practitioners will find it most helpful to take the UK GDPR as their starting point and then consider the specific supplementary provisions of the DPA 2018. This Practice Note considers the UK and EU GDPR regimes, the

[Title of the report] 1 [Name of arbitral institution (if any) and Case Number] 2 [Full details of the parties in the arbitration: Claimant(s) and Respondent(s)] 3 [Expert report of [Name] or [Company]] Table of contents [Insert

This Practice Note is a horizon scanner for key forthcoming developments in arbitration globally. It identifies anticipated dates, where available, and provides commentary on the following categories of development: • legislation: ◦ Bills in progress ◦ Acts not in force, partially in force or subject to staged introduction • consultations • other key developments This horizon scanner does not cover past developments, such as legislation fully in force or final judgments. For details of past developments in the field of Arbitration globally, see Practice Note: Arbitration—tracker. Practice Note: AA 1996 s 9—case tracker records and summarises UK case law developments relating to applications made to the courts of England and Wales to stay litigation proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), and links out to relevant analysis. This Practice Note does not separately cover reports and related materials published by UNCITRAL Working Group II: Dispute Settlement or UNCITRAL Working Group III: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform. For dedicated coverage see Practice Notes: UNCITRAL Working Group II—reports and UNCITRAL Working Group III—reports. Legislation Bills

Arbitration-related legislation—England and Wales • Arbitration Act 1996, as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025 • Administration of Justice Act 1970 • Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 (CPR)

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL [insert name and address of expert] [insert date] Dear [insert name of expert] [insert case heading] Instruction to act as expert witness in arbitration between [insert name of parties and any case number/reference] We act for [insert name of instructing party (or parties)] who [is OR are] involved in arbitration proceedings with [insert name of opposing party or parties] relating to [insert brief description of dispute] (the Arbitration). Thank you for your agreement to act as an expert witness for [insert name of instructing party]. This letter sets out the basis on which [insert name of instructing party] is instructing you to act as an expert witness in the Arbitration. The Arbitration arises out of a contract between [insert instructing party name] and [insert party name] dated [insert date] (the Contract). Under the Contract, the parties agreed that all disputes are to be referred to arbitration in accordance with [[insert relevant legislation] OR [insert relevant arbitration rules]]. The seat of the arbitration is [insert legal seat, eg London, England or Paris, France]. [The Arbitration is taking place in [insert venue

This Practice Note provides an introductory guide to arbitration, arbitration lawyers and the work they undertake, as well as key topics and concepts relevant to such lawyers. It is aimed at trainee-level and newly-qualified lawyers, as well as others who are new to arbitration as a practice area or method of dispute resolution. This Practice Note also provides links to relevant LexisNexis® sources and materials. What is arbitration? Put simply, arbitration is a method of dispute resolution. Arbitration takes various forms and is practised across a wide range of sectors and industries, which give rise to many different types of disputes. While different forms or types of arbitration typically have key features in common, they can also be quite different from each other. In practice, the term ‘arbitration’ typically refers to a private form of final and binding dispute resolution presided over by an appointed arbitral tribunal acting in a quasi-judicial manner. Arbitration is, in most cases, founded on party agreement or mutual consent (the arbitration agreement), frequently a clause in a standard form or other contract, and

The following arbitration resources, providing useful practical commentary, legislation, rules and guidance for arbitration lawyers, whether in private practice or in-house, are available in Lexis+® UK. They are referenced and linked to in the arbitration content in Lexis+® UK. Please note, however, the titles listed can only be accessed with the relevant Lexis+® UK subscription(s). Commentaries Title Summary Who should use this resource? International Arbitration Handbook A practical and accessible guide to international arbitration by Nina Hall, Gustavo Moser and Shai Wade. Covering the international legal framework, arbitral institutions and the key procedural and practical issues at every stage, it takes readers from drafting effective arbitration agreements through to recognising and enforcing arbitral awards. Arbitration lawyers and arbitrators seeking a comprehensive guide to international arbitration, with practical guidance at every stage of the arbitral process. The Civil Court Practice 2026 (The Green Book) An authoritative and comprehensive guide to bringing, defending and appealing civil proceedings. It contains the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, practice directions, court guides and expert commentary, including the procedural framework governing arbitration claims and applications

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Commercial Court refused to stay or restrain two London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitrations pending determination of applications under sections 24 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Party A had sought what it described as a ‘stay’ under CPR 3.1(2)(g), contending that the arbitrations should not proceed while the court considered an application to remove the sole arbitrator and a serious irregularity challenge. Mr Justice Butcher held that CPR 3.1(2)(g) applies only to court proceedings and cannot be invoked to stay arbitral proceedings. Properly characterised, the relief sought was an injunction restraining further pursuit of the arbitrations. The judge doubted whether the court had jurisdiction to grant such relief, given s 1(c) (the principle of non-intervention) and s 24(3), which expressly permits arbitral proceedings to continue while a removal application is pending. In any event, even if such jurisdiction existed, it could only be exercised in exceptional circumstances (for example, where continuation would be vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable), and no such circumstances were made out. The decision underlines the strict limits on judicial intervention in ongoing arbitrations and confirms that the mere existence of s 24 or s 68 applications / challenges will not justify interrupting the arbitral process. Practitioners should note the court’s clear refusal to assume any supervisory role over arbitral procedure prior to an award. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.